Kern County faces big question on marijuana: ban or regulate?

Kern County faces a big question on the commercial marijuana activities front: ban or regulate?

This will be the question posed to the Board of Supervisors later this week as a draft environmental impact report released by the Department of Planning last week comes before it.

The draft EIR, in circulation now, will be open for public comment until Sept. 11. A public hearing has been set for the Kern County Planning Commission on Sept. 28. The board itself will be given a public briefing Aug. 22 at 2 p.m. for informational purposes only (no action will be taken on the EIR).

It impacts only the unincorporated areas of Kern County like Inyokern, Johannesburg and Mojave.

The EIR follows on the footsteps of voters’ decision to pass Proposition 64, which legalized recreational use of marijuana in the state of California. The state is in the process of creating guidelines and framework that will govern how businesses grow, process and sell it beginning in January 2018.

The two options are fairly straightforward.

A ban means no commercial medicinal and recreational use cannabis businesses in the unincorporated areas. That option would provide “a timeframe for legally exiting retail medicinal cannabis dispensaries to cease operations.”

This second option would provide existing operations with a timeline to file for and receive approval of a conditional use permit or cease operations.

Kern County First District Supervisor Mick Gleason said Tuesday that while he still needs to look at it, there are several factors to consider.

“The big issue is how do we respond to marijuana use and whether to ban or regulate it,” Gleason said. “What do we do?”

Gleason added the county and the board will need to decide whether there are any benefits under the new law and how to mitigate its uses.

He expressed his own reservations about the whole affair.

“My position is that marijuana is a danger to our children and I do not support it,” Gleason said. “However I have no decision in this (in how it is used). This is a state decision.”

Prop. 64 legalizes recreational use in California. However, the law also provides groundwork for how Kern County can regulate the industry or ban it.

The draft EIR and its appendixes contain thousands of pages of impacts, descriptions, maps and studies as to what happens if the county bans commercial enterprises or regulates the industry.

The county currently had 29 dispensaries operating in the unincorporated areas as of November 2016. Of those, seven are in violation of a 2016 moratorium, which is still in effect.

Whether banned or regulated, according to the EIR, usage and cultivation in the county’s parks and “public spaces” are off limits.

Under a regulated plan, any cannabis-related business will need a state license, and the county gets to dictate how they can operate. This includes controlling location, manufacturing and distribution, testing the product, sale, transportation and labeling of the product.

Conditional use permits will need to be obtained and approved by Kern County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

According to the draft EIR’s executive summary, if a regulated plan was approved and put in place, “[f]uture cannabis-related activities authorized under Option B, within unincorporated Kern County, would result in the development of up to 2,000,000 square feet of indoor cultivation activities, up to 150 acres of outdoor cultivation activities, up to 500,000 square feet of processing, packaging, and distribution operations, and up to 40 retail cannabis stores with or without mobile delivery.”

The option would also allow for two retail stores/dispensaries with or without mobile delivery to operate in a community. Currently, many of the dispensaries that operate in the county are within the same community.

Gleason said there are other concerns as well, such as how marijuana cultivation in the Indian Wells Valley may impact the groundwater basin.

There is also the question of what happens should current agricultural land owners decide to re-utilize their land to grow marijuana crops. The Indian Wells Valley now has a groundwater sustainability agency, tasked by the state to come up with sustainability plan to balance its groundwater use by 2020.

While studies vary, a marijuana plant could require approximately 22.7 liters (almost six gallons) per day.

“A person has who owns ag land has the right to grow things on it,” Gleason said. “However, we can look at ways to offer incentives not to grow marijuana on ag here in the valley.”

While the ordinance has no impact on incorporated cities like Ridgecrest, California City and Bakersfield, some have already made their decisions.

Ridgecrest and California City have already made their decisions. According to Ridgecrest interim city manager Ron Strand, the city passed an ordinance banning commercial sale or cultivation of marijuana inside city limits last year.

“The city has already addressed that issue,” Strand said Tuesday.

California City went the other direction when voters approved a ballot measure in June. Cal City leaders are banking on the hopes that permit fees and taxes will provide revenue for essential services like police and fire. Permits for cultivation sites have already been approved.

Strand said the county ordinance may be taken to the city council at a future date to be addressed, along with the possibility of drafting a letter.

A long, complicated dance

The county has struggled for the better part of a decade to regulate or control medical cannabis, from banning to zoning it to industrial areas.

In 2006, it approved an ordinance for medical marijuana co-ops and collectives by requiring them to get a business license issued by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office with restrictions to business hours, registration of employee names, unlimited access by law enforcement, security requirements, setbacks from local schools and others.

Six dispensaries were approved under the 2006 ordinance.

The county repealed the 2006 ordinance in 2009 and removed the majority of prior restrictions. The only restrictions placed on dispensaries in the 2009 decision included that be located more than 1,000 feet from a school, recreation center or youth center, that they be treated as a pharmacy for zoning purposes; violations would be counted as a misdemeanor.

The board of supervisors placed a moratorium prohibiting new medical cannabis dispensaries from opening or existing ones from moving in 2010. In 2011, the moratorium was extended another year, and on Aug. 9, 2011, the board banned all medical cannabis dispensaries in the unincorporated areas.

A ballot measure, Measure G, passed with 69 percent voter approval in June 2012, permitting dispensaries in specific areas of the county.

“However, on February 14, 2014, the Kern County Superior Court ruled that Measure G was invalid and must be set aside because Kern County did not comply with CEQA prior to the Board of Supervisors placing the ordinance on the June 5, 2012, ballot for the voters to adopt,” according to the EIR’s executive summary.

In 2016, a moratorium was established and continues to be in effect.

The deadline for public comment is Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. To review the draft EIR, visit pcd.kerndsa.com/ and select “Kern County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance Project.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.